


Ask the community...
Has anyone tried contacting Texas legislators about this? If the UCC search system isn't working properly, it affects the reliability of the entire secured transactions system. This seems like something that should be escalated beyond just the SOS office.
That's probably above my pay grade, but you're right that this affects the integrity of the whole system. If lenders can't rely on UCC searches, it undermines the perfection process.
Bottom line - everyone needs to be doing multiple search variations now and keeping good documentation. The days of trusting a single exact-name search are over, at least until they fix whatever they broke in their system update.
Agreed. Multiple searches, document everything, and use verification tools when possible. It's extra work but necessary until the search reliability improves.
Don't forget about the timing requirements. UCC-1 filings are usually required within a specific timeframe after the security agreement is signed. Missing that window can affect the priority of your lender's security interest versus other creditors.
What's the typical timeframe? Our loan documents don't specify exactly when the UCC filings need to be completed.
Multi-state filings are a pain but manageable if you're organized. Create a checklist for each state with their specific requirements, fee schedules, and portal quirks. Ohio lets you file online but their system times out frequently. Michigan's portal is more reliable but has stricter formatting requirements. Indiana is somewhere in the middle.
This is incredibly helpful. Are there any other state-specific issues we should watch out for with Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana?
I've been doing UCC work for 15 years and this search reliability problem is relatively new. Used to be you could trust that filed documents would show up consistently in searches. Now you need to verify everything multiple times. Really concerning for lien perfection purposes.
Technically the filing creates the perfection, not the search results. But from a practical standpoint, inconsistent searches create huge problems for due diligence.
This is why I always keep detailed records of every search I run, including screenshots and timestamps.
Update: I contacted the SOS office and they confirmed there are known issues with search synchronization. They're working on a fix but no timeline yet. In the meantime, they suggested running searches at different times and keeping detailed records of any inconsistencies.
They said if you need definitive search results for closing or legal purposes, you can request a certified search for a fee.
When I did my last mass search, I found that breaking it into smaller batches helped. Do 25-30 names at a time so you don't lose track.
Whatever system you use, double-check a few searches manually to make sure you're getting complete results. Trust but verify.
Good approach. I always verify at least 10% of any bulk search results manually.
Giovanni Mancini
Have you considered filing a continuation on any existing UCC-1s while you sort this out? If you have older filings that are approaching the 5-year mark, at least keep those current while dealing with the new series issues.
0 coins
Diego Vargas
•These are all new filings for new equipment loans, but good reminder about continuation timing for our existing UCCs.
0 coins
NebulaNinja
•Always good to keep track of those 5-year deadlines, especially with multiple entities involved.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Suwaidi
Update us when you get it resolved! I'm dealing with a similar situation with a Delaware series LLC but filing in multiple states. Would be helpful to know what format finally worked for you in Ohio.
0 coins
Dylan Mitchell
•Yes please update! These series LLC UCC issues seem to be becoming more common.
0 coins
Sofia Morales
•Cross-jurisdictional series filings are even more complicated. Good luck with that multi-state situation!
0 coins